RANill SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE 01' PUNJAB AND OTHERS (And Connected Appeals) August 20, 1964 (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C. I., K. N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYAT- ULLAH, K. c. DAS GUPTA AND N. RAJAGOPAL.\
AYYANGAR IJ.) East Punjab Holdings (Con.rolidation and Pr.ventlon of Fragmtnla· lion) Act (50 of 1948) as amended by Punjab Act (27 of 1960) and the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act (I of 1954)-Validlty– Constitution of India, 1950, Arrs. 19, 31 and 31-A.
a mult of procecdinp for consolidation of holdings in certain villages in Punjab, some lallds had been taken away from the propric· ton, reserved and given ·over to the village panchayats or allotted to aoni>roprietors, under powers derived from various enactments, namefy, the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmenta· tion) Act (L of 1948) as amended by Punjab Act (27 of 1960), the Punjab Gram Panchayat Act ( 4 of 1953) and the Punjab Village Commoo Lands (Regulation) Act (I of 1954).
Under ·s. 7 of the last Act the proprietors were not entitled to any compensation. They challenged by writ petitions the •·alidity of the proceedings and the enactments undor which the proprietor's interest was acquired without ccimpensation as being in breach of Arts. 19(1)(() and 31 of the Constitution. The High Court di.<misscd them following its own full bench decision in
Jagat Singh v. Punjab State, ( 1962) P.L.R. 241. In appeals to the Supreme Court, it was contended that : (i) The Full Bench decisic'n was not correct in view of the decision in K. K. Kochuni v. Staie of Madras [1960) 3 S.C.Jt. 887, and (ii) the Amending Act (27 of 19601 and the Regulation Act (I of 1954) were ultra vires.
HELD : (i) The Full Bench decision was right. [94C-D]. The view taken by this Court has always been in favour of giving a large and liberal meaning to the terms "estate", "rights in an Cllale" and "extinguishment and modification" of such rights in Art. 31-A of t1te Con•titution of India. and nlso, to give a wide meaning to the expreuioa "agrasian reform". [93C-D; 94A·B).
The enactments referred to above and the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act ( 10 of 1953) are all part of a general scheme of agrarian reforms and the modification of rights envisaged oy them bad the pro- tection of Art. 31-A.
[95B.C]. Case law considered. The Kochuni case [1960) 3 S.C.R. 887 did not involve any agrarian · reform. It conside~ a ba;e transfer of the rights of the sthanu to tloe tanvad without alteration of the tenure and without any pretence of agra- rian reform.
That was a special case and could not be applied to C85C!I where the general scheme of legislation was definitely •granan re· form. [94B.CJ. (ii) 1be changes.froposed by the consolidation proceedings were included in the gener
scheme of planning of rural areas and the pro- ductive utilisation of vacant and waste lands. If agrarian reforms aze to succeed, mere distribution of land to the landless is not enough. 1bere muat be a proper planning of rural economy and C<'nditions. A scheme
c c. ff RANJIT v. STATB (Hidayatullah J.) which makes villages self..,Ufficient cannot but be regarded as· part of the larger reforms which consolidation of holdings, fixing of ceilinp on lands, distribution of surplus lands and utilising of vacant and wute lands contemplate. (94 .E-G; 95A-B).
Quaere : What is the relevance and bearing of Art. 31-A as amend· ed by the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964 on the c-. (900-E]. CML APPELLATE JurusDICTION : Civil Appeal N:i. 743 of
1963. Appeals by special leave from the judgment and orders dated December 13, 1961, and September 12, 1960 of the Punjab High Court in C.W. No. 319 of 1961 and Civil Writ No. 454 of 1958 c and Letters Patent No. "388 of 1958 respectively.
Bishan Narain, S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, for the appel- lants (in C.As. Nos. 553 & 554/1962). Bishan Narai_., and D. Goburdhun, for the appellant (in C.A No. 743/1963). R. Ganapathy Iyer and B.R.G.K. Ar:har, for the respon-
dents (in C.As. Nos. 553 and 554/1962) and respondents Nos. 1 to 3 (in C.A. No. 743/1963). S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, for respondent No. 4 (in C.A. No. 743/1963). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Hidayatullah J. This judgment will dispose of Civil Appeal No. 743 of 1963 and 'Civil Appeals No. 553 and 554 of 1962. The appellants in Civil Appeal No. 743 of 1963 are owners of lands in village Virk Kalan, Tehsil and District Bhati- F nda. The appellants in the other appeals are owners of lands in villages Sewana and Mehnd of Tehsil Hansi in District Hissar. Proceedings· for the consolidation of holdings are going on in these villages under the East Punjab Holdings
(Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act 1948 (Act 50 of 1948). This Act was amended on many occasions but we are concerned G with it as amended by the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) (2nd Amendment & Valida-
tion) Act (27 of 1960). In the present consolidation proceedings portions of lands from those commonly owned by the appellants as proprietors, have been reserved for the village Panchayat and given over to it for diverse purposes, and other portions have been reserved either for non-proprietors or for the common purposes of the vil1age$.
Without going into too much detail it is sufficient to indicate that in village Virk Kalan 270 SUPREME OOU.T Rf.PORTS (l 96S) I S.C.R. '"'1taU lllld 13 lftDl'las have been Btvm to the village Panchayat fo1 management and realisation of income, although the ownar- shlp is still shown in village papers as Shamlat Deh iii the n~ of the proprietors and l 0 kanals and 3 marlas have been reser- ved tor abadi to be distributed among penons entitled thereto and 3 /canals and 7 marlas have been reserved for manure pita. Similarly, in. village Sewana 400 ktinaJs and 4 '""'las have heen set apart for the village Panchayat for extension of the abadi ud to caable grants of 8 mar/as of land to be made to each family of nOll-proprietors and 16 kanals have been reserved for a primary school and some more for a phimi. Similiarly, in village Mehnd, land has been resecvod for the village Panchayat, a school, tan- ning ground, hospital, Cf!lmation ground and for non-proprietors. The proprietoi:S were not paid rompensation for tho lands and it is the taking away and allotment of these lands which are the subjeCt of challaige in thae appeals on grounds about to be stated.
Before we . do so we will set down some of the legislative measures which havo relevance and mention some n of the cases decided under them one of which led to the Second Amendment Act.
1bo Consolidation Act (50 of 194 8) was pai;sed to provide for the compulsory consolidation of agricultural . holdings and for preventing the fragmentation of agricultural holdings.
Section 18 of the Act provided that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, it shall be lawful for any Consolidation Officer to direct inter alia:
• (a) that any land specifically assigned for any common purpose shall cease to be so wisned and to assign any other land In its place; (b) . ( c) that if in any aroa under comolidation no land is
reserved for 1111y common purpose including exten- sion of the village ilbadi, or if tho land so reserved inadeqWlte, to assign other land for such pur- pc»c." Soction 46 of' the · ~nsolidatlon Act ~nferred powers on the State Government 'to make rules for carrying out the purpose of the Act and in particular to provide for : .
ff ~(e) the lll8llllft ha wbicla tbo area ls to be resened aador IOCtioA 18 111111 the nwmer in which it it to . RAN.JIT V. STA Ti ( Hidayatlll"'11 J.) bo dealt with and also tho mallller in which the
village abadi is ·to be given to proprietors and non-. proprietors (including S,Cheduled castes, Sikh back- ward classes, ;irtisans and labourers) on payment of compoilsation or otherwise;"
OD Mardi 3, 1956 the Punjab Government, by a notification, added rule 16 to the Rules for reservation of the abadi fot die proprietors as well as the non-proprietors and it read as
follow&:-· ''The &ml to be morV'ed for the common purpose · of oxtension of abadi for proprietors. and non-propriO- tors under section 18 ( c) of the Ac;t shall be reserved after scrutinizing the demand of proprietors ·desirous
of building ,houses .and of non-proprietors including Hatijan fllDillies working as agrarian labou~rs who are in need of a site for house. The land reserved for eJ1:tension of abadi. shall be divided into plots of
suitable aiJ,cs; · For the plots allotted to proprietors area · of equal value shall be deducted from their holdings but in the case of non-proprietors including Harijan families these shall be allotted without pay-
ment of compensation and they shall lie deemed to be full owners of the plots allotted to them." On April 9, 1957 the Punjab Government added rule 16(ii) which provided for reservation of lands for the Gram Panchayat. It read:
"16(ii) : In an estate or estates where during consolida- tion proceedings there is no shamlat deh land or such land is considered Inadequate, land shall be reserved for the village Pancbayat,
under section 18(c) of the Act, out of the common pool of the village at a scale prescribed by Government from time to time. Proprietary rights in respect of land, so· reserved (except the area reserved for the extension
of abadi of proprietors and non:proprietors) shall vest in the proprietary body of the estate or estates concerned; and it shall be entered in the column , of ownership of record of rights as (jumla
malikan · wa digar htuJdaran ilrati hasa~ rasrid rtuJba). The management of aue.h land ·shall be done b:y the Panchayat of. the eltate or estates concerned · on behalf -0f the vtlllge proprietary ·body and the Pan-
chayat shlill have the right to utilize . the Income SUPREME COURT RHPORTS I 1965] I S.C.ll. derived from the land so reserved for the commoa needs and benefits of the estate or estates concerned.~
Rule 16(ii) was declared ultra vires on November 5, 1959 by the Punjab High Court in Munsha Singh v. State of Punjab('). After Munsha Singh's case the second amending Act (27 of 1960) was passed. It gave legal cover to rule l 6(ii) by inclu4- ing in section 2 of the Consolidation Act (50 of 1948) the follow- ing:-
"2 (bb) "Common purpose" means any purpose in rela- tion to any common need, convenience or benefit of the village and includes the following purposes :- ( i) extension of the village abadi;
(ii) provide income for the Panchayat of the village concerned for the benefit of the village com- munity; c (iii) village roads and paths; village drains; village wells, ponds or tanks; village watercourses or D
water channels: village bus stands and waiting places; manorc pits; hada rori; public latrines; cremation and burial grounds; Pancbayat Gbar; Janj Ghar; grazing grounds; tanning places;
mela grounds; public places, of religious or E charitable nature; and (iv) schools and playgrounds, dispensaries, hospitals and institutions of like nature, waterworks or tube-wells,
whether such schools, play grounds) dispensaries, hospitals, institutions, waterworks or tube-wells may be managed and controlled by the State Government or not." It also added d new section (s. 23-A) in the Consolidation Act as follows :-
"23A. As soon as a scheme comes into force, the management and control of all lands assigned or reserved for common purposes of the village under section 18,- (a) in the case of common purposes specified in
sub-clause (iv) of clause (bb) of section 2 in res- pect of which the management and control are to be exerci'ied by the State Governmen:, shall vest in the State Government; and 1) I.L.R. (19601 t Punjab S89.
1.• RANJIT v. STATE (Hidayatullah !.) (b) in the case of any other common purpose, shall vest in the panchayat of that village; and the State Government or the Panchayat, as the case may be, shall be entitled to appropriate
the .income accruing therefrom for the benefit of the village community, and the rights and interests of the owners of such lands shall stand modified and extinguished accordingly:
Provided that in the case of land assigned or re- served for the extension of village abadi or manure pits for the proprietors and non-proprietors of the village, such land. shall vest in the proprietors and
non-proprietors to whom it is given under the sche- me of consolidation." It also amended the preamble suitably. All the amendments were with retrospective effect. Before we follow up the result of this amendment we may
say something about three other Acts of the Punjab Legislature to which some reference will be necessary in the sequel. The Punjab Gram Panchayat Act, 1953 (4 of 1953) was passed to
provide for better administration in the· i;ural areas of Punjab by Panchayats. Section 19 of the Panchayat Act laid multifarious E admini.>trative duties on the Panchayat like sanitation, drainage, supply of water, looking after burial and cremation
grounds, public health, providing schools, hospitals etc. and also empha- sin:d- "(f) pounds for animals; (n) the development of agriculture and village industries, and the destruction of weeds and pests;
(o) starting and maintaining a grain fund for the culti- vators and lending them seed for sowing purposes on such conditions as the Gram Panchayat may approve. (q) allotment of places for preparation and conservation
of manure; (t) framing and carrying out schemes for the improved methods of cultivation and management of land to increase production." SUPREME COUil? lll!PCtllTS I 1965) 1 3.C.R.
Tho last was added in 19S4. In the &a.me year the legislature enacted tho Punjab Village Common L'IDds (Regulation) Act' (I of 1954) with the object of regulating the rights in sluimlar deh and abadi deh.
The provi5ions of the Common Lllnds Regulation Act resulted in the vesting of all rights of management in the sham/at deh in the village Panchayat and in the land in the abadi 4eh under a house owned by a non-pro- prietor, in the non-proprietor ( s. 3). Section 4 provided: "All lands vested in a
panchayat by virtue of the provisions of this Act shall. be utilised or disposed of by the panchayat for the benefit of the inhabitants of the village concerned, ·in the manner prescribed."
Section 6 provided : "Any income accruing from the use and occupation of the lands vested in a panchayat shall be credited to the panchayat fund and >hall be utilised in the manner prescribed."
Finally, section 7 provided : "No person shall be entitled to any compensatioa fo• any loss su1fcred or alleged to have been suficmi &, a result of the coming into force of this Act."
The Common Lands Regulation Act was challenged in ttublm Singh v. State of Punjab(') but was upheld. The High Q)nn, however, observed that Art. 31 ( 2) would have rendered the Act void but for the enactriient of Art. 31-A.
The last Act to which a brief reference may be made is the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, (10 of 1953) &nd ita amendment by Act 57 of 1953 and Act 11 of 1955. By that Act security of land tenures, fixing of areas for "self-cultivation" was provided and there was conferment of rights on tenants to purchase 11111ds undec thoir cultivation
from the land-boldem. The validity of these Acts was challenged but they were upheld in Atma Ram v. Statl!' of P11njab( 2 ) to which we shall refer later. The appellants in this appeal bad filed a Civil Writ Petition (No. 319 of 1961 ) contending that the distribution of sham/at lands was illegal and such lands, if they had to be redistrib~ted, could only be distributed among the proprietors but could not De given to non-proprietors.
Grover J., who heard the petition dismissed it on the authority of Jagat Singh v. Punjab Statt('). Against bis order special leave was g.ranted by this Court and (I) I.L.R. [t955] Pul\iab 1334.
(2) [l9S9[ S.C.R. I Supp. 748. (3) t962 64 l'.L.lt. :Mt. RANJIT v. STATE (llidayatullah I.) A Civil Appeal No. 743 of 1963 is the result. The other two appeals- arise from other writ petitions.
Writ Petition -No. 761 of 1957 (Civil Appeal No. 553 of 1962) was dismissed by Grover J. against whose decision a Letters Patent Appeal was filed. Writ Petition No. 454 of 1958 (Civil Appeal No. 554 of 1962) was heard by the Bench which heard the said Letters Patent B Appeal and both were dismissed on August 18, 1960. The High Court did not certify the judgments as fit for appeal but the ap- pellants obtained special leave and Civil Appeals Nos. 553 and 554 of 1962 were filed.
These appeals were heard together and they challenge the c correctness of the decision in lagat Singh's case(') and thus question the validity of the Amending Act 27 of 1960 because they contend it is in breach of Arts. 19 ( 1 )( f) and 31 of the Constitution. Rules 16(i) and (ii) are also challenged.
They further challenge the Common Lands (Regulation) Act which is a part of the entire scheme. The High Court in /agat Singh's D case(') has held that Act 27 of 1960 gives retrospective validity to rules 16(i) and (ii) and the position which existed when M unsha Singh' s case (2) was decided does not obtain now. The
High Court has also decided that Act 27 of 1960 is saved by Art. 31-A and the case of this Court in K. K. Kochuni v. State of Madras(') which interpreted Art. 31-A, as amended by the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 195$, is not applic- able.
In the appeals before us the same points are raised and the Common Lands (Regulation) Act is also challenged. These appeals were heard and closed for judgment on April 27, 1964 but as the Court went into vacation at the end of the first week of May, judgment had to be postponed till after the vacation.
The Court reassembled on July 20, 1964 but on June 20, 1964 the Constitution (Seventeenth Amendment) Act, 1964, received the assent of the President. That amendment inter alia substituted retrospectively from January 26, 1950, a new sub-clause {a) in clause (2) of Art. 31-A and added a proviso to cl. (1). These cases were decided in the Wgh Court under Art. 31-A as it was formerly.
The appeals were set down to be mentioned on July 20/23, 1964 before a different Bench, and counsel were asked if, in view of the amendnl.ent, they wished to say anything. Surprisingly enough none of the parties wished
to argue the appeals and though we cannot now refer to sub-cl. (a) of cl (2) of Art 31-A as it was fomicrly, because that sub- (!} (1962) 64 P.L.R. 241. (2) 1.L.R. (1960) I PuD.iab 519.
(3) [1960] 3 S.C.R. 887. !! 0 SCPREMP. COURT RF.PORTS [1965) l S.C.R. clause must be deemed to have never e:Wtcd, we are in the un- happy position of not being able to express any opinion on Art. 31-A as .it must be deemed to have been all the time.
In view of the attitude of learned counsel the Bench before which the statements were made recorded the followin,; order:- "These appeals were set down for hearing tC'Clay to enable the learned counsel appearing for both the parties,
to argue whether the provisions of Arc. 31-A, as they have been amended by the Constitution (Seven- teenth Amendment) Act, 1.964, had any relevance and bearing on the case which had been fully argued
before another· Bench before this Court closed 'for C the summer vacation. The counsel appearing for both the parties made it clear that the amended pro- visions had no bearing and they wanted us to
decide the said appeals without reference to the said amendment. The appeals will, therefore, be set down for judgment in due course." The appeals thus remain to be decided on the old arguments though it is clear to us that the amendment of Art. 31-A, far- reaching as it is, must have affected one or other of the partiei It seems that the implications of the amendment of the Consti- tution will have to be worked out in some other case.
The short poi.lit which we think arises is this: whether ·the transfer of sham/at deh owned by the proprietors to the village Panchayat for the purposes of management in the manner des- cn'bed above and the conferment- of proprietary rights on non- proprietors in respect of lands in abadi deh is illegal and the
several provisions of law allowing this to be done are ultra vires An. 31 inasmuch as no compensation is payable or whether the law and the action taken are protected by An. 31 cA?
The argument of Mr. Bishan Narain in these appeals was that they were covered by the Kochuni case('). In that case this Court observed that the Madras Marumakkathyam (Removal of Doubts) Act, 1955 was invalid by reason of Art. 19(1)(f) G inasmuch as it deprived a sthanee of his properties and vested them in the tanvad contrary to Art. 19( 1 )(f). It was also held (as has been correctly summaril5ed in the head-note) that it was not saved by Art. 31-A (as it then stood) because even if the stbnam properties held in janmam rights could be regarded as "estates", An. 31-A did not protect them since, properly constru- ed, the article envisaged agrarian reform only and provided for the (I) (1960) 3 S.C.R. 88~. –
.• .ii RANJIT v. STATE (Hidayatullah 1.) A acqumt10n, extinguishment, or modification of proprietary and various other kinds of subordinate rights in a tenure called the estate solely for that purpose. It was pointed out that although the -statement of objects and reasons could not properly be looked into for purposes of interpretation, it could be referred to for the limited purpose of ascertaining the conditions prevailing at the B time of the Fourth Amendment. . It was pointed out that Art. 31-A cl.(b) must be read with cl.(l)(a) and as the impugned Act did not contemplate any agrarian reform or seem to regulate the rights inter se between landlords and tenants or modify or extinguish any of the rights
appertaining to janmam right, leaving all the characteristics intact, it did · not come within the purview of Art. 31-A of the Constitution. In lagat Singh's case(') the Full Bench of five Judges agreed that the impugned provisions did come within the conception of agrarian reforms but conflicting views were expressed regarding the ambit of Art. 31-A as expounded in the Kochuni case(2). A part of the statement of objects and reasons which accompanied the Fourth Amendment has been set out in the Kochuni case(2 ) · but from the lines of operations which were in contemplation in the proposed amendment only one appears to have been quoted there.
Perhaps No. (ii) is also important to consider in this connection and it reads: " (ii) The pro pet planning of urban and rural areas require the beneficial utilisation of. vacant and waste
lands and the clearance of slum areas." Consolidation of holdings is really nothing more than a proper planning of· rural areas and this planning must of necessity take note of vacant and waste Ian~. While we do not seek to inter- pret the impugned rules and Acts, nor even Art. 31-A of the Constitution with the aid· of this statement of Objects arid Rea- sons, for such a canon is not approved of in our practice, we have only completed the picture which to our minds emerges from these objects and state)nents, if they are at all considered relc:.- G vant for any purpose.
In Kochuni case( 2) re.ference was made to Atma Ram v. Stat~ of Punjab c• > and the following passage was quoted to show that agrarian reform was the core of Art. 31-A:.- "Keeping in view the fact that Art. 31 cA was enacted by
two successive amendmen~ne in 1951 (First Amendment), and the second in 1955 (Fourth (I) (1962] 64 P.L.R 241. (2) (1960] 3 S.C.& 887. (3) (1959] S.C.R. I Supp. 748. SUPllEMB COURT REPORTS
(196SJ I S.C.R. Amendment)-with retrospective effect, in order to save legislation effecting agiarian refol'lll.1, we have every reason to hold that those expressio~ have been used in their widest amplitude, consistent with the
purpose behind those amendments." The expres.siona from Art. 31-A which were given such wide connotation were "any estate or of any rights therein" and "the extinguishment or modification of any such rights" occurri~g m Art. 31A(l). The Act there considered was the Punjab
Security of Land Tenures Act ( l 0 of 1953) as amended by Act 11 of 1955. It limitCd the area o~ land for "self cultivation", gave the tenants rights to purchase lands with them and in thi5 way "modified" the rights of landlords.
It also released excess land for redistribution. This was regarded to be· agrarian reform and thus within the protection of Art. 31-A. The obscrvatiom of this Court in Thakur Ragh11bir Singh's case( 1 ) were explained and were confined to the facts of that case.
Article 31-A was appa- rently not then viewed from the angle later adopted in the Kochuni case('), namely, that Art. 31-A was concerned with "tenures" as such. There is reason to think that the Kochuni case was re1ard- ed on other occasions' too, as one decided on it• own facts. in
Gangadhar Narayanrao Majumdar v. State of Bombay(1) in considering the words "estate" and "righls in an estate", the right of an 11Nlmdw- under Bombay Acts Nos. II, VII of 1863 to appro- priate to himself the difference between the full assessment and the quit rent was treated as a right in an estate and its u.tiopi!lt- me\lt, Of modification. was considered lei protected by Art. 31-A. Similady, in RClm Narain MtiUii v, State of Bombay(') the Bom- bay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act 1956
(which amende<I Bombay Act LXVU o{ 194~) was ill quation. It sought to distribute equitably the lands between the Iudlcmh and tenants by way of compulwry purchase of aU surpl\11 lands by teMllts in possession thereof from April I. 195.7 (k.nowil as tbe Tiller.;' Day). The fundamental idea was me prc.venlion ol con- centration of lands in the hands of a few landholders.
It was pointed out that this was protected by Ari. 31-A. No l!oubt the redistribution of lands so tbat a. few may nQ! monopoli3e ·the !<Ind is tbe cardinal prin<:iple on which aeraiian economy in a. socialistic pattern of society rests.
llut certain observations in the case show that abolishing intermediaries or modiffcations of the te11urc.~ (1) 11:953) S.C.llt. lQ.49. (l) [1961] l S.C.R. 943. (2) [1960) 3 S.C.llt. 117.
(4'1 [19S9J Supp. t.S.CR. 489. f RANJlT v. STATll .(Hidayatullah /.) 93' A was not the only objective open under Art. 31-A. It was. observed: c "With a view to achieve the objective of establishing a
socialistic pattern of society in the S!ate within the· meaning of Articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution,. a further measure of agrarian reform was enacted ·by the State Legi,slature, being the impugned Act,
hereinbefore referred to, which was designed to · bring about s~h distn'bution of ownership and control of agricultural lands as best to subserve the common good thus eliminating concentration of
wealth and means of production to the common detriment." (Italics supplied) It is clear that in this passage a wider meaning to the expression,. "agrarfan reforms" than that given in the Kochuni case( 1 ) is discer- nible. · We shall refer to one more case to illustrate our point. ·n In Sonqpur Tea Co. Ltd. v. Must. Mazirunnessa(') the validity· ,<if the Assam Fixation of Ceiling of Land Holdings Act, 1957 was considerCd and the question was whether the rights which were taken away or abridged by the Assam Act were "rightS" in relatiOn to an estate within the meaning ·of Art. 31-A(2)(b) of the Constitution.
The Kochuni case ( 1) was decided on May 4, 1960 and the decision in the Assam ca5e was given on April 4, 1961 but there is no mention of the dicta in the former case. · It was held that the rights which were extinguished undoubtedly constituted "rights in relation to an estate" and Mr. N. C. Chatterjee who argued the case, conceded that this was so (see p. 730). The same conclusion regarding the meaning of lhe· F word "modification" was reached in Burrakur Coal Co. Ltd. v. Union of India(') without adverting to Kochuni case( 1). See also State of Bihar v. Rameshwar Pratap Narain Singh(') and Stale of Bihar v. 1Jmesh Iha('). In the latter a provision of the Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950, as amended by the Bihar Land
G Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1959 which empowered the Collec- tor to annual anticipatory transfers of land designed to defeat the · object of the Act was held to be protected by Art. 31-A, though the section by ·itself did not provide for the "extinguishment or modification" of any rights in an estate. It was justified as an integral part of a statute which did so and thus received the protec- tion of Art. 31-A along with the parent Act.
1, (I) 11960] 3 S.C.R. 887. (2l [1962] I S.C.R. 724. (3) (1962] I S.C.R. 44,61. (4) (1962] 2 S.c.R. 382. (S) [1962] 2 S.C.R. 687. LlSup./64-7 SUPRl!MI! COUltT Rl!POllTS (1965] I S.C.R.
From a review of these authorities it follows that when !he A Punjab High Court decided these cases on the authority of /apJ Singh' s C38ll ( 1) the view tak.ell in Ibis Couu w~ in favour of. giving a lllrge and lib~ral meaniq to the terma 'CWM', 'rights in an atate' and 't:xtinguishment and modification' of such rights in Art. 31-A No douOt Kochwu"s case(') =idcred a bare transfer of the rights of the sthanee to tbc tanvad wilholll al&eration of the tenure and without any pi;etcmcc of agrarian mlmm, as not one contemplated by Art. 31-A hOIWVer liborally eonatnied.
But that was a special ~ and we C8llllot apply it to cases where the general ~ of legislation is ddinitely agrarian reform and under its provisions some&hing ancillary thereto in the interests of rural economy, has to be undertaken to give full effect to the c reform5.
In our judgment the High Court was right in not applying the strict rule in Kochuru"s case(1 ) to the facts here. The High C.ourt was also right in its view that the proposed changes in tho sham/at deh and abadi deh were included in the general scheme of planning of rural areas and the productive utilisation of vacant and waste lands.
The scheme of rural devo- lopmcnt todB)' cnYisagcs not ooTy equitable distn'bution of land so that there is no undue imbalance in society resulting in a landless class on the one hand and a conc:entration of land ill the bands of a few on the other. but envisages also the raising of coonomic standards and bettcrillg rural health and soc:ial condi· tions.
Provisioas f11r tho s··•ignment of Janda to village Pancha· yat for tha uso of tho general community, or for hospitals, schools, manure pits, taDDing grounds etc. enure for the benefit of rural population must be considered to be an essential part of the redistnDution of holdings and open lands to which no objec- tion is apparently taken. If agrarian reforms are to succeed, men: di.un"bution. of land to the landless is not c110ugh. There
mllit be a proper plannini of rural ecoDOIDY and conditions and a body like the 'Yillage Panchayat is best designed to promote rural welfaze than individual OwnetS of small portions of lands. Further, tho village Panchayat is an authority for purposes of Part m as was con.ceded before us and it b.as the protection of Art. 31-A because ol. this character even if the taking over of sham- /al deh &mollJlts to acquisition. In our opinion, the High Coon wu right In deciding as it did on this patt of the case.
With respect to abadi dtft the samts re!!ll'!7!ing must apply. The aettUng of a body of agricultural ~ (such as the Wiage ~. the village blacksmith, tb.e village tsmHr, (I) (1'62) 64 P.LR. 241.
(2) [1960] 3 S.C.R. 887. RANJIT v. STATE' (Hidayatullah J.) A farrier, wh~lwright, barber, washerman etc.) is a .part of rural planning and can be comprehended in a scheme of agrarian reforms. It is a trite saying that India lives in villages and a scheme to make villages self-sufficient cannot but be regarded as part of the larger reforms which consolidation .of holdings, fixing of ceil- ip.gs on lands, distribution of sUl;plus lands and utilisii:ig of vacant B and.waste lands contemplate. The four Acts, namely, the Con- solidation Act,· the Village Panchayat Act, the Common Lands Regulation Act and the Security of Tenure Act are a part of a general scheme of reforms 31).d any modification. of rights such as the present had the
protection of Art. 31-A. The High Court was thus right in its conclusion on this part of the case also. In our opinion "'these appeals must fail. We, however, make it clear that _by rc:a,son of , the circums~ances which have super- vened we have done no more than examine the correctness of the decisions under appeal . (particularly the Full Bench· decision D in Jagat Singh's case(') which was followed in them) in the light af facts and law present to the mind of the Full Bench.
For obvious reasons we have not strayed beyond that limit but if we have expressed any opinion which seems to bear on the Seven- teenth Amendment, it should .not .be . .regarded as deliberate or binding. '.I'he appeals fail and will be djsmissed but there will be no order about costs.
Appeals dismissed. (1) (1962) 64 P.L.R. 241.